Re: FSF, terminology, and marketing

[Brian Cameron <Brian Cameron Sun COM>]

> I'm looking askance at this. I find the arguments in favor of 
> "GNU/Linux" to be specious: if you examine the makeup of early Linux 
> distros, following the FSF's reasoning would obligate one to call it 
> "X/GNU/Linux", at least. Further, I'm troubled at the idea that we'd 
> attempt to conform to FSF ideas on terms like "intellectual property" 
> and "open source".

I do not think I, or anyone, have been suggesting that the GNOME
community will conform to any particular FSF idea on terminology.
Instead, I am interested to get clarity about to what degree of
conformity makes sense, and to understand to what degree we already
conform.  If there are areas where we choose to diverge, it is useful to
know what those areas are and understand why.

> Few distros refer to themselves as "GNU/Linux", and the mainstream media 
> never uses the term. It's unclear to me, with the numerous other things 
> we could be usefully doing, why we'd choose to spend energy on a, 
> frankly quixotic, "terminology crusade".

Those reasons have already been raised as rationale for not following
the "GNU/Linux" terminology.  At this point in time, we are only
discussing the topic, and not engaging on any sort of "terminology
crusade".  What the marketing team thinks, in general, about if and when
FSF recommended terminology should be used is valuable input to be
considered in figuring out what terminology is best used and in what
contexts.

> Shall we advise folks to avoid buying Harry Potter books as well?

Probably not, but if there are people who want to talk about that, then
they probably will.

Brian